Posting # 32

         [NOTE: Below is my response to a series of five lengthy articles written by the Rev. Doug Barnes in 2003.  Christian Renewal accorded me only 4 columns of space to respond to 29 columns by Barnes criticizing what I call Evangelical Inclusivism.  That was an impossible assignment.

        I decided to completely ignore everything Barnes wrote. I used my 4 columns to summarize what I was advocating. I soon forgot this encounter.

        Evidently some persons interpreted my lack of direct response to Barnes as an inability to refute his arguments.  Recently (2006) it has come to my attention that in certain venues, especially among students, the Christian Renewal articles are looked upon as the coup de grace of Evangelical Inclusivism.

       The article below is meant to correct this misunderstanding.  This article was first of all sent to Christian Renewal and to the Rev. Doug Barnes.  Neither has indicated that I have misrepresented Barnes.]

A response to the series of five articles by the Rev. Doug Barnes

published in Christian Renewal under the general heading:

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PUNT

First Article: “ Neal Punt 's Spin on Universalism”

(Christian Renewal, January 27, 2003)

          Although the Rev. Doug Barnes uses some pejorative phrases and mentions some criticisms of my work that he will discuss later in this series, in this first article he gives a fair summary of what I call Evangelical Inclusivism. * His comments about the label (what I called Biblical Universalism at the time) mean little. It is only a label! I wish I had called it “A Generous Orthodoxy.” It is the perspective itself that Barnes disagrees with and he is welcome to attach any label he wishes to it.

         Because the other criticisms will be taken up later, I will respond to only these two items found in this first article:

        1) Barnes says, “Rather than starting his discussion with man's fall in Adam, Punt starts with man's salvation in Christ and works backward to Adam.”

         RESPONSE: That I do. Creation itself is part of the “background” for Christ's work on earth, “All things were created . . . for him.” So also “man's fall” was part of the reality into which Christ came. Colossians 1:15 – 20 reveals Christ's place in this entire real life drama: “He is the beginning . . . so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (emphasis added).

        Especially, therefore, when talking about “the good news” it is the second Adam and not the first Adam who must occupy the place of preeminence. The “good news” starts with, continues, and finds its culmination in Christ. Starting “with man's fall in Adam” results in the all too familiar pattern of “bad news, accompanied with a good suggestion.”

        “Starting with Man's fall in Adam” assumes that sinners are not aware of their need for forgiveness. Such is not the case. God has already spoken to all sinners about his wrath. ( Rom. 1:18, 19; 2:15). Because God's wrath against sin has been made plain to all men, "Many are asking, 'Who can show us any good?'" (Ps. 4:6). The extremes to which many have gone in sacrificing their possessions, their bodies and even their own children in order to appease the "gods," whom they consider to be against them, testifies to the seriousness with which they view their plight.

        Despite their external boasting of goodness, sinners know better.  At a deep level sinners are afraid, non-trusting, insecure and self-defensive. What the masses of mankind need to know is that the same holiness that accuses them has provided a full and free forgiveness for their sins. Only then will they dare to admit to themselves, to God and to others that they are sinners worthy of judgment.

(See Posting # 10, “The Message of Missions.”)

        2) “But Punt refuses to see faith - even faith created by the Spirit of God - as a ‘condition' of salvation,” says Barnes. To substantiate this claim Barnes quotes Dr. Cornel Venema (President and Professor, Doctrinal Studies, Mid-Amerca Reformed Seminary) to the effect that “faith must be termed a ‘condition' for salvation” (from “an unpublished 1987 review of Punt's first book”).

         RESPONSE: Faith is not a brief, momentary, act that once for all translates the sinner from utter darkness to perfect light . “ Justifying faith” is a lifestyle, a “walk,” a “living by faith” that is often weak and always “imperfect and stained with sin.” The “heroes of faith” in Hebrews 11 lived “in faith” (Vs. 13) and not one of them is portrayed as having a perfect, pure, sinless faith.

         The Heidelberg Catechism acknowledges that in precisely so far as faith is a human activity (“Even the very best we do in this life”) it is “ imperfect and stained with sin ” (Q & A 62). Something that is “imperfect and stained with sin” can not be a “condition” for salvation.

         Faith is the “FRUIT AND EFFECTS,” of election it is not a “condition” to bring us into the state of grace. “Election [to salvation] took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be saved.” “Election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith , holiness and other saving gifts and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects ” (Canons of Dort I, Art. 9, emphasis added).

        God has not chosen “the intrinsically unworthy act of faith,” or “ the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation” (Rej. of Errors, III, emphasis added).

         To say that faith is a condition for salvation gives the lie to these words of the apostle: “God who has saved us and called us to a holy life - not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9).

         Yes, faith is necessary and it “is indispensable to the reception of the gospel.” However, we must pursue the question, “ Why is faith ‘indispensable to the reception of the gospel?'” When this is done (See Posting # 6) it is clear that both the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds deny that faith is a “condition” for salvation.

(See Posting # 6 “Isn't Faith Necessary in the Light of John 3:16?” See also Posting # 27, “ Heidelberg Catechism Q & A's 20 and 65 .”)

Second Article: “Taking a kick at Original Sin”

(Christian Renewal, February 10, 2003)

Barnes' second article is divided into four sections:

1) Punt's “aberrant understanding of original sin.”

         It is not Barnes' intention to misrepresent what I believe concerning original (inherited) sin. Nevertheless, he leaves the impression that I disagree with what he, in accordance with the Scriptures, says about the extent and the effect of Adam's sin. Readers should know I totally agree that:

a. “Every person born since Adam, Christ excepted, has been born sinful in nature and action.”

b. Rom. 1:18 – 3:20 “shows that Jew and Gentile alike are lost in sin and are utterly dead. They have no hope of salvation within themselves.”

c. “If God had revealed only this portion of Scripture, we could be nothing but miserable; for it speaks not comfort, but universal condemnation. We all are without excuse (Rom. 1:20), having only the hope of living a righteous life by our works (2:6-7) - but knowing that none is righteous, none seeks God and none does good (3:10-12).”

d. “Our hope is found not within this passage, but within its context. Truly. ‘Now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe' (3:21-22a).” [Not “to only those who believe,” as Barnes carelessly reads this text, see Barnes Third Article, below.].

          Because I accept everything the Scriptures teach as summarized in a. thru d., (immediately above) it can not be said that I have taken “a kick at Original Sin.”

2) Report 30 - Barnes declares that this three-year study report is “hopelessly muddled.”

         No matter how Barnes chooses to characterize Report 30, the same can not be said about Synod's “recommendations” and “grounds” for adopting Report 30 and for referring it: "to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation. --adopted" (P. 76 * ).

         I will limit my appeal to these unambiguous “recommendations” and “grounds.” These were carefully formulated and adopted by Synod 1980, reviewed and confirmed by Synod 1981, as the Christian Reformed Church's response to the late Dr. Harry Boer's central complaint against the creeds.

         In 1977 Boer submitted a serious charge against the teachings of the creeds of the CRC. “The heart, the soul, the essence, the sine qua non ” (Boer's own words) of his complaint was that the Canons of Dort teach that: "a segment of mankind . . . is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being” (P. 497).

         The first ground for adopting Report 30 gives a resounding “NO! ” to “the heart, the soul, the essence, the sine qua non " of Boer's complaint. It says: "The Canons of Dort do not teach . . . " that God has "consigned certain human beings to damnation APART FROM any merit or demerit on their part" (emphasis added, P. 76).

          The phrase, " APART FROM any merit or demerit on their part," can not refer to the "merit or demerit" attributable to the whole human race by its identification with the first Adam. If any segment of the human race is consigned to damnation solely on the basis of original (inherited) sin, then Boer's complaint is valid. Then a "segment of mankind . . .” IS “consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being."

         The first ground for rejecting Boer's complaint is identical to Biblical Universalism's teaching that: “no one is consigned to final damnation solely on the basis of original (inherited) sin, APART FROM personal, willful, persistent sin on their part .” This is the “ elucidation” [the light] in which the CRC understands “the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation” (P. 76).

          An important and necessary implication of both Synod's first ground (for rejecting Boers complaint) and of Biblical Universalism is that all who die in infancy are saved.

         My first book appeared the same week this “elucidation” was adopted by the Christian Reformed Church - the second week of June 1980. What a providential happenstance!

(See also Posting # 11, “The CRC's View of Those Saved and Those Not Saved” and FAQs # 18 “Are All Those Who Die in Infancy Saved?”)

* All page references relating to REPORT 30 are to the Acts of Synod 1980.

3) The So-called Universalistic Texts

         This is “the heart” of the matter. What I call Biblical Universalism is primarily based on the so-called “universalistic” passages of the Scriptures. If what I say about these passages in Posting # 2 can be shown to be in error, then there can be no “Biblical Universalism.”

         Barnes dismisses what I have written about the so-called “universalistic” texts in Posting # 2 by repeating what traditional Calvinists have always said about these passages. I herewith suggest that Barnes could participate in the opportunity I have extended to the faculty members of Calvin Seminary and Mid-America Reformed Seminary.

         Working with one or more of these faculty members Barnes should be able to formulate a definitive refutation of what I say about these texts in Posting # 2. Surely Barnes can find one or more of these faculty members who would be willing to collaborate with him on such a project. This refutation would become a permanent addition to my website (See Posting # 31.) for all my readers to consider.

(See Posting # 2, “Biblical Fact # 1, The So-Called Universalistic Texts.”)

4) The Symmetry of Headships

        Barnes takes note of the symmetry between Adam together with those joined to him and Christ together with those joined to him that is found in the so-called “universalistic” texts. His argument is that this symmetry is so rigid and complete that if God chooses not to bring final judgment on any person APART FROM personal, willful and persistent sin on the part of those so condemned, it must also be that there is no final salvation APART FROM personal, willful and persistent obedience on the part of those who will be saved. Thereby an element of works righteousness would necessarily be involved in the salvation of every sinner.

         Other than Barnes saying that the “Symmetry of Headships” necessarily requires this total, rigid parallelism, he presents no proof that this is so. His argument rests on the arbitrary claim he makes and on nothing else.

         With all his insistence on the total symmetry between the two “headships,” as these are depicted in the so-called “universalistic” texts, he does not acknowledge that for both of these headships the reference is to “all persons” in the so-called “universalistic” texts.

         Barnes, together with all traditional Calvinists, must violate this “total symmetry” concept when it comes to the “all persons” element of these texts. They are compelled to locate a limiting factor in the immediate context of every one of the so-called “universalistic” texts. To permit even one of these texts to say, "all persons will be saved," no matter how clearly they say this, would fatally contradict their theological presupposition.

(See Posting # 4 “ Biblical Fact # 3 All Are . . . Some Are Not.”)

Third Article: “The Crux of the Matter: Salvation”

(Christian Renewal, February 24, 2003)

           Barnes begins this third article by citing many passages that clearly say: “All those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.” He does not claim that I deny this. Barnes disapproves of the fact that I say these passages do not say: “ONLY THOSE who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.”

          To say: “All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved,” - means - “ONLY THOSE who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved,” is a logical fallacy. It is just as reasonable to say that: “All apples are fruit,” - means - “ONLY apples are fruit.” That is an obvious violation of Logic 101.

         C.S. Lewis was fully aware that many scriptural passages say: “All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.” However, Lewis does not draw the faulty conclusion that therefore - “ ONLY THOSE who have a New Testament knowledge of Jesus Christ will be saved.” Lewis says, “We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that ONLY THOSE who know Him can be saved through Him” (Book II, 5, p. 65, emphasis added).

CONFESSIONAL CONFLICT

         Following the above faulty reasoning, Barnes claims I am in a “confessional conflict” with Q & A's 20, 60 and 65 of the Heidelberg Catechism. He notes that these questions were part of the charges filed against me in a heresy trial. These charges were appealed all the way to Synod. Barnes does not record the outcome of this trial, namely, that Synod adopted the following recommendation:

        "That synod not sustain the appeal of the Lethbridge CRC against the decision of Classis Chicago South re the views of Rev. Neal Punt .

       Ground: The appeal does not prove that Classis Chicago South erred when it decided that the views of Rev. Punt do not contradict the Scriptures and the creeds.  Adopted" (Acts of Synod, 1985, p. 790).

(For a full account of this trial see FAQs # 20 “ Rev. Punt, what was the outcome of your heresy trial?” To understand why Synod did not judge my views to be in conflict with the Scriptures or the creeds, see Posting # 27 “ Heidelberg Catechism Q & A's 20 and 65 .”)

FAITH'S ROLE

         Under the section entitled “Faith's Role” Barnes again insists that faith is a “condition” for salvation. For my response to this: (See First Article , Item 2, above).

         The only new thought in this section of “Faith's Role” is Barnes criticism of my statement that: “There is nothing sinners must do in order to move God to ‘not count their sins against them.'” Having said this it makes no sense, says Barnes, for me to also say that all they must do is “accept (not be indifferent to, or reject) the good news” that God has already reconciled them to himself.

         Barnes difficulty here is that he has failed to take note of the extremely important biblical distinction between objective and subjective salvation. OBJECTIVE salvation is something that occurred 2,000 years ago apart from any personal faith being required. Therefore it can be said, “There is nothing sinners must do in order to move God to ‘not count their sins against them'” (“ALL THIS is from God, who reconciled . . .” all the elect to himself through Christ “not counting [their] sins against them.” - 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19a).

Some other examples of OBJECTIVE salvation can be found in: John 3:17; 2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:22; Heb. 9:12, 10:10, 14 and 1 John 2:2.

(See Posting # 24 “ Reconciled! - Past Tense”)

         However, SUBJECTIVE salvation is to enjoy, revel in, experience, this already accomplished reconciliation. One can not remain indifferent to, reject or not accept this “good news” and nevertheless “enjoy, revel in, and experience” the fact that their sins are “not counted against them.” For subjective salvation to occur faith is required.

         Therefore Barnes is correct in saying that faith is required for every sinner to enjoy, experience, or find comfort in the fact that 2,000 years ago they were reconciled to God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. There are many things that are necessary for the sinner to believe (“know”) in order “to live and die in the joy of this comfort” (H.C. Ques. 2).

Some examples of SUBJECTIVE salvation can be found in: John 3:16, 3:18; Acts 2:41, :47, 16:14b; Romans 1:13 and 1 Cor. 9:22.

         Rom. 10:17 “Faith comes from hearing the message.” This text is frequently cited as incompatible with Biblical Universalism. However the entire section 10:9-17 is clearly speaking of SUBJECTIVE salvation which Biblical Universalism recognizes requires faith.

         To summarize, faith is not required for “objective salvation” to occur. Faith is required for “subjective salvation” to occur. Until Barnes recognizes and works with this biblical distinction he will continue to confuse those who try to carefully discern what he is saying.

(See Posting # 7 “ Objective/Subjective Salvation.”)

INFANTS, OTHERS?

         In this last subject that Barnes discusses in this third article he speaks about the relationship between the “doctrines of covenant and necessary faith.” He implies that I have not mentioned how Biblical Universalism relates to “the covenant.”

         In my first book I speak extensively about the covenant (See the Index, p. 160). In my second book there is an eight page supplement about the covenant (pp. 111 – 118). Those not having access to these books can turn to Posting # 17 “The Covenant Line.”

         In this section Barnes again says that “Faith is necessary to salvation, period.” How can anyone agree or disagree with this undifferentiated claim? Faith is not required for objective salvation to occur (that occurred 2,000 years ago). Faith is necessary for subjective salvation to occur. (See Posting # 7 “ Objective/Subjective Salvation.”)

         Because Barnes does not distinguish between objective and subjective salvation I find it extremely difficult to understand what he is attempting to say in this portion of his third article.

        Therefore I will make only this observation:

         Barnes says, “Oddly enough, Biblical Universalism would seem to make abortion the most certain means of evangelism ever devised!” The editor of Christian Renewal thought enough of this quote to make it the prominent sidebar of Barnes' third article.

         How are we to understand the fascination of the Barnes and the editor with this quote? Are they ridiculing the fact that God could overturn evil for good? Are they saying that those who advocate Biblical Universalism would encourage abortion? The same could then be said for godly parents who “ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.”

         Evidently Barnes and the editor of Christian Renewal do believe that some infants are: “. . . consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever come into being.” In every reference in both the Old and New Testament that portrays the relationship of God to little children, without any exception, this relationship is portrayed as a positive, accepting, non-threatening relationship even though these children are “ by nature objects of wrath.”

         Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God creates little children and consigns some of them to hell “before they ever come into being.” The Christian Reformed Church denies that the Canons of Dort teach any such thing! (See Art. 2, Report 30, above.) To say or imply that God may do so, as Barnes does, is at the least a very precarious position to take and may be profane.

(See FAQs # 18 “ Are All Who Die in Infancy Saved?”

Fourth Article: “Pride and Forced Exegesis”

(Christian Renewal, March 10, 2003)

PRIDE

         “For Biblical Universalism, the pride aspect comes to the fore in Punt's claim that, after centuries of bickering, Arminians and Calvinist can lay down their swords and walk home as friends for both were right after all!”

         What I claim is that: “For more than 400 years Calvinists have correctly maintained that these so-called ‘universalistic' texts speak of a ‘ certain-to-be-realized' salvation. During all these years Arminians have insisted that these texts speak in terms of ‘all persons.'   Neither of these schools of thought has been able to demonstrate that the other is in error in what they affirm about these texts. Both of these elements are undeniably found in these texts.”

         No honest person can rule out the possibility that pride may be an element of motivation in whatever they do. However, to say it is pride to favor less “bickering” among Christians seems somewhat strange. I can say that I feel I have a strong motivation for promoting “Biblical Universalism.” Please see FAQs # 4 “ Why crusade for Biblical Universalism? ” and FAQs # 12 “ Accountable for Teaching .”

USING A “GRID” THROUGH WHICH TO FILTER SCRIPTURE

           The title of this fourth article implies I “force” the interpretation of every one of the so-called “universalistic” texts through a “grid” in order to get a consistent result. I say: “We may not prohibit the Scriptures from ever saying that ‘all persons will be saved.'" This is not the adoption of a “grid.” It is to deny the use of a particular “grid.”

          I say this because Arminian and traditional Calvinistic theologians have always used this prohibition as their "grid" whenever they interpret the so-called "universalistic" passages.  They insist that no text may ever say: "All persons will be saved."

          It is understandable that Barnes and other traditional Calvinists together with Arminians get “nervous” about what I say in Posting # 2. If either of these schools of thought would permit as much as just one of the so-called “universalistic” texts to say “all persons will be saved,” as they so clearly do say, their basic theological assumption would flounder. Therefore they have placed a “gag order” on every passage that appears to say “All persons will be saved.”

          Because traditional Calvinists can not permit even one of these texts to say “all persons will be saved,” they are compelled to find a limiting factor in the immediate context of every one of these texts. Then, quite cleverly, anyone who fails to find that limiting factor is accused of "sloppy exegesis" because they must have ignored the context.

          Arminian theologians are a bit more forthright. They categorically and arbitrarily claim that, because these texts may never say “all persons will be saved,” these passages must be speaking of a possible or potential salvation for every person. They, like traditional Calvinists, are compelled to use this “grid.” These texts say nothing about such a "potential or possible" salvation.

         I wish “Arminians and Calvinist” would “walk home as friends” asking themselves: “What's wrong, must we continue this 400 year old verbal battle until death unites us?”

RE-DEFINING THE ELECT

         Barnes faults me for relying on the so-called “universalistic” texts for defining the extent of those who are elect in Christ, and not on such texts as: “Rom. 9:11and 11:7;  2 Tim. 2:10; and 2 Peter 1:10.”

         I am an unabashed five-point Calvinist. I believe that “before the beginning of time” God in Christ chose a certain, definite number of persons, less than all, to salvation. Therefore, other than the questions that all traditional Calvinists ask each other concerning the texts listed by Barnes, there is nothing that these listed texts would add to the discussion.

         It may seem proper, therefore, to ask me: “Since you believe that a definite number of persons, less than all, were chosen to salvation in Christ ‘before the foundation of the world,' why don't you also believe that: “Some persons are consigned to final judgment before they come into existence?” The only answer that I and the Christian Reformed Church can and do give to this question is that: The Bible never speaks that way and therefore neither may we, no matter how logically correct the question appears to be.

         As one theologian has said, “In this particular matter the Bible is splendidly illogical.” The Bible leaves us with this supposed problem hanging over our heads.

I CORINTHIANS 15:22   “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”

         Barnes subjects 1 Cor. 15:22 to the standard “grid,” (the gage order) used by all traditional Calvinists and Arminians, namely, “not one of the so-called ‘universalistic' texts may ever say ‘all persons will be saved.'” Therefore he is forced to find, a limitation in the immediate context to the second “all” but no limitation to the first “all” in this text.

        Barnes refers to the following texts in the immediate context of vs. 22 in order to find a limitation to the second “all” of vs. 22: vss. - 1, 2; 12-14; 17-19; 20-21; 23, 24 and John 17:24 (sic). Of all these texts only vs. 2 appears to lend some support for Barnes' “limitation.” It does so, however, only if we accept the proposition: “All who believe will be saved” - means - “ Only those who believe will be saved.” (See Barnes' Third Article, above.)

         Barnes permits the text itself to define its extent in relationship to those associated with Adam. He can not afford to let the text itself to define its extent in relationship to those associated with Christ. He must impose the “grid” of not permitting this text to say “all persons will be saved.”

         The very structure of the sentence suggests “all” without modification. It says “in Christ shall all be made alive,” it does not say “all in Christ shall be made alive” as Barnes claims it does. To say that Paul uses this structure in order to maintain the parallel between the first and the second parts of the sentence is ingenious. If Paul intended to maintain a parallel structure without having in mind all persons distributively in association with Christ, he could have written in Greek: “For as all in Adam die, so also all in Christ shall be made alive.” This option was open to Paul and he chose not to use it even though Barnes implies he should have.

         It is acknowledged by Barnes, traditional Calvinists, Arminians and every student of Scripture that the first “all” is a distributive referring to all persons universally. It is entirely unreasonable to say that the identical word used in a totally parallel grammatical construction within the same text would have a different denotation, unless there was some notice of an exchange of terms.

        Yes, Barnes quotes me accurately and I say it now again: “An impartial reading of this verse (vs. 22) - indeed of this entire chapter - in isolation from the rest of Scripture would lead one to absolute universalism [Everyone will be saved].” There is nothing in this entire chapter that imposes a limited extension on the second “all” of vs. 22. Of course, this verse and chapter may not be understood in isolation from the broader context of the Scriptures which reveal that there are some exceptions to the second “all” of vs. 22.

(See Posting # 29 “EXAMINING THE SO-CALLED ‘UNIVERSALISTIC' TEXTS .”)

Fifth Article: “The implications of Biblical Universalism

on our Doctrine of the Church” (Christian Renewal, March 31, 2003)

BELGIC CONFESSION, ARTICLES 27, 28, 29

        Barnes calls our attention to the fact that these three articles speak of “one catholic or universal Church” a gathering “of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ.” Since this “is a gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it” and “all people are obliged to join and unite with it” and submit “to its instruction and discipline.” “All believers” ought “to join this assembly wherever God has established it.”

         “This true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: [pure preaching, administration of the sacraments and Christian discipline].”

        “There is nothing ‘spiritualized' about this description” of the true church, Barnes reminds us. Art. 29 “defines members as those who bear ‘the marks of Christians,' including a faith that receives Jesus Christ as the only Savior.” Barnes then draws the conclusion that this “definition alone would seem to dictate that either Biblical Universalism or the Belgic Confession fails to 'fully agree with the Word of God.'”

         We ought to keep three thoughts in mind about the Belgic Confession's description of the true church:

  1) Guido de Bres, the primary author of this confession, lived in the age when theologians seldom seemed to realize that there were entire nations and peoples who were never exposed to the teachings of the Bible. All of civilization was pretty well pictured as being Christian or those opposed to Christianity. In such a scenario everything described in these three articles makes very good and understandable sense.

  2) The confession itself speaks of the obligation of those who are saved to be joined to the church “wherever God has established it.” Biblical Universalism speaks about the established church and about places where God has not “established it.”

  3) In his third article Barnes himself says, “We learn that all are called to exercise faith according to their capacity.” Those who have never been meaningfully exposed to the written Word of God do not “have the capacity” to either join or withdraw from the assembly of believers as described in the Belgic Confession.

          Barnes has not demonstrated that Biblical Universalism “runs contrary to the truth set forth in the Belgic Confession.”

The Faith of Our Fathers   

          Just as he did in his Second Article entitled: “Taking a Kick at Original Sin” (above), Barnes attempts to demonstrate that Biblical Universalism denies the extent and the effect of original sin. This time he makes his vain attempt by quoting the Canons of Dort .

           Again I can say that I am in total agreement even with Barnes' summaries of what Dort says about original sin. Including such thoughts as: “all are condemned, for all have sinned in Adam and thus fall under the sentence of curse and eternal death,” Adam's “childen, too, bore this corruption,” and “without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God,” etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. with numerous quotes from the Canons of Dort.

         These statements of the Canons of Dort about the extent and effect of Adam's sin are all summed up in such Scriptural passages as I Corinthians 15:22 a, “For as in Adam all die.” Biblical Universalism accepts this just as fully, totally and completely as Barnes does! So what is the point in quoting all these excerpts from the Canons of Dort ?

        Biblical Universalism also accepts just as fully, totally and completely what the rest of 1 Corinthians 15:22 says: “so in Christ all will be made alive” allowing only for those exceptions that are necessarily imposed on this text as they are described in other portions of the Bible. Of course, the “grid,” “the gag order,” (See “ USING A GRID' THROUGH WHICH TO FILTER SCRIPTURE” above.) with which Barnes works does not permit him to so “fully, totally and completely” accept 1 Corinthians 15:22b.

A Final Word

          In this section Barnes graciously admits that I have been willing to respond to his inquiries and to carry on this discussion in private conversations.

          He then concludes this series of articles by summarizing many of the things he has said before.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

         I am willing to send a “hard copy” of all of Barnes' articles that appeared in Christian Renewal at my cost if permission for such reproduction can be obtained from Christian Renewal .

Cordially, Neal Punt at whenindoubt1@charter.net

* EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience or in gospel presentation.

Evangelical Inclusivism is based upon these three biblical facts:

1) The so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinist have consistently maintained and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed (Posting # 2).

2) We must accept the so-called "universalistic" texts as written. We may allow only those exceptions that are necessarily imposed upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (Posting # 3).

3) All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by the imputed sin of Adam (original sin). However, the Scriptures do not teach or imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their sin in Adam APART FROM actual, willful and persistent sin on the part of the person so consigned (Posting # 4).

© 2006 by Northland Books. Box 63, Allendale MI 49401. Unlimited permission

to copy and distribute this document without altering text is hereby granted if

this source is acknowledged.